Monday, March 01, 2010

Obama & Jackson Should Stick To Their CO2 Guns


By Norris McDonald

It might look like the ending of the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" for President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on climate change mitigation right now, but the dynamic duo should 'stick to their CO2 guns.' If Congress does not grow a backbone and pass climate change cap and trade legislation, fast tract the regulations at EPA. Labor unions, Democratic committee chairmen, state governors and their attorneys general, unimaginative energy companies, Republicans and other opposition industry interests should be lobbying Congress to pass legislation instead of writing letters to Administrator Jackson and suing the agency.

If Congress does not act, EPA should limit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Obama and Jackson would rather not regulate carbon dioxide and other gases under the act and I agree with them. Yet Congress is leaving them no choice. It would be unconscionable for Obama and Jackson to fail to adequately address this most important of environmental issues. I hate that EPA is delaying regs on smaller emitters until 2016. My real desire is to get in the business of CO2 reduction. That is why we established our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX), Green Carbon Bank (GCB) and Carbon Dioxide Reduction (CDR) Program a couple of years ago in anticipation of leveraging efficiency retrofits and innovative energy production. Phase in the largest emitters, medium sized emitters and smaller emitters now. We are just wondering if the EPA regulatory route will allow for 'anyone' to hold and trade allowances in the same manner as the EPA Acid Rain Program and the Northeastern states Regional Greenhouse Gas Iniative. The Center is registered in both programs.

We oppose proposed bills by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D., Mo.) to cancel the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. We also disagree with the two dozen petitions consolidated by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. challenging the EPA "Endangerment Finding" that triggers regulation.

No comments: